Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

54 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
roysier wrote:
Too be honest it looks to me Paizo is running out of sales ideas. The early books everyone in my game group bought, that would be 6 copies of each book, but by bestiary 4 & 5 by group had no interest, inner race guide, also no interest, the strategy guide sits as my local game store without a single copy purchased, so now my local game store only stocks 1 book instead of the before 3 books. I have only seen the Inner Sea Race Guide in 1 of the 6 games stores I frequent. The stores simply didn't stock it.

Oh, please. Stop. Just stop.

I’ve been reading the “Paizo is out of ideas” lie for 7 years now. Will supplements likely sell less than core books? Duh, no kidding. What is frequently omitted from such critical dissection of sales (aside from actual sales data, but hey if you can’t use anecdotal evidence on the Internet, where can you?) is the fact that for many years, Erik Mona would let slip that Core Rulebook sales increased year-over-year.

But let’s discard that nugget of industry-relevant information and just take a quick stroll down memory lane and look at the “out of ideas” claim.

2009 – Pathfinder Core Rulebook – “Paizo is releasing a set of house-rules for a tired rules set. WotC has exhausted the 3.x design space”. Obvious improvements, rules clean-up, & redesign be damned. There was a 4e to save after all!

2010 – Advanced Player’s Guide – Multiple new classes that become critical and fan favorites. Plus archetypes – which single-handedly eliminated prestige class bloat, expanded versatility of existing classes, and in the eyes of many is where PF “came into its own”.

2011 – Ultimate Combat & Ultimate Magic – “We’ve got a gish class now and a ninja. Lots of eastern martial content and some optional rules. Yeah, they must be running out of ideas.”

2012 – NPC Codex – This “who wants a bestiary full of NPCs?” is widely hailed as an incredible time-saver for PF GMs everywhere.

2013 – Ultimate Campaign – “Character backgrounds, cleaned-up kingdom building? That’s not really new.” We’ll just pretend an entirely new Downtime subsystem didn’t exist, because there couldn’t have been any design space left. Oh, and GM subsystems and advice for honor, investments, reputation, etc. Nothing to see here, move along.
"Hey, didn't 5e (released after UltCamp) have Downtime rules, too?"
"Shut up, you're not helping."

2014 – Advanced Class Guide – “Hybrid classes? Yeah, they are soooo out of ideas.”
Except for the every class we knew we wanted (swashbuckler, slayer, warpriest) we were treated to ones we never knew we wanted but immediately realized that we did (bloodrager, skald, investigator, brawler).

2015 – “You know that you-know-who is coming out with that new edition of you-know-what. Boy, Paizo’s lack of ideas must sure have them sweating bullets.” But then…
BAM – Pathfinder Unchained – new rules to tweak, expand, or reinvent your PF game. “Well if it’s the Unearthed Arcana of PF, it MUST mean there’s nothing left in the design space of that game.”

SMACK! – Occult Adventures right between the eyes! – Psychic magic, chakras, psychic duels, possession, auras… “What do you mean I can make a bender from Avatar?!?! Wait, there’s an iconic who has a ghost companion and it’s the ghost of her dead husband?!?!?” <mind explodes> Oh wait, that’s in there too.

Yeah, that’s a pretty damn strong case on how Paizo is running out of ideas… (how do you do ‘roll eyes’ in forum-speak?)

Now, it’s completely fair to debate the utility of any given book, subsystem, class, etc. But spare me the talk about “running out of ideas”. I have never seen a track record as good as Paizo’s. And I have no horse in an edition war race, so this next comment is purely for comparison to “ideas”. Which is more “original” - what’s laid out above or Player Book 5, GM Book 5, Monster Book 5?

Which is more “original”:
#1
Ravenloft 4.0
Return to the Tomb of Horrors – for the 3rd time!
Beware the Sundering – where we undo the past to, um, reset things to closer to an older past…

#2
Travel in Baba Yaga’s Hut to Earth and fight Rasputin
Fight in land of science and sorcery against an AI that wants to become a god
Lead a rebellion in one of the setting’s cornerstone evil nations
A Marco Polo-style journey to the other side of the world

I'll take Paizo "out of ideas" over almost every other RPG publisher in the world during the "Golden Age" of their game/edition.

Final Note: If you have a FLGS, be thankful. Embrace it. Support it. But you need to realize that for many of us, it’s a MYTH. I’ve been gaming for 30 years. I’ve never lived near a store that I could call “local”. Most that I visited were anything but friendly. 90% of my RPG library was purchased from the Internet once I learned I didn’t have to go to the Distant-Unfriendly-Gaming-Store or rely on what a local bookstore stocked. The stock of any given gaming store is anecdotal. It doesn’t reflect the industry any better than 3 randomly-polled gamers RPG libraries do.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:


SNIP

I wish I could favourite this twice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Fantasy Flight Games and Catalyst Game Labs for revising old systems like WarhammerRPG, Shadowrun, Battletech, Star Wars, etc, and Paizo did the same thing for WotC. Shame Green Ronin didn't join the ranks of those successes...

To your point: Why?

The most I would see/purchase would be a CONSOLIDATED Core Rulebook fusing the most beloved concepts or just one that a Player can take to a PFS game and just dump ONE Hardback on the board for all their options outside of Chronicles/Companion bits. Screw a new edition, I want compilation omnibus HARDBACKS! PF is the evolution of 3.5 and D20 in general, any further and we may as well change whole formats? Leave D20 entirely and transcend to the Godhood that is D10/Percentile where suddenly every roll makes sense because it functions on the BASE TEN number system we all employ most in real life.

Hell why not make Pathfinder 2.0 Paizo's revision of WotC's 4E?

...I'll show myself out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What does "critical rule mass" even mean? I see this concept tossed out in pretty much every thread of this nature and the concept still sort of baffles me. Like somehow having content is a bad thing? I don't get it.

As for the topic itself. I don't really see a reason to. Yeah, there's some messy stuff buried in there, but there's also a lot of good stuff and a new edition would either have to throw everything away (which seems to both be a big waste and run counter to Paizo's AP focused business model) or be so compatible with regular Pathfinder as to not really mean anything.

Closest I could ever see to it is Paizo releasing some sort of CRB 2.0 or continuation of the "Unchained" concept to retune more of the old classes that might have design or balance issues and revise more old rules.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

You know if you want to introduce new players there is a nifty beginner box..... Just saying.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paulicus wrote:

Pathfinder is getting pretty clunky. More options are nice and can be ignored, but puts more onus on home groups to ban/allow/houserule things they don't want to deal with.

Do many gaming groups do a ban/allow list, though? I personally run using the Core Rulebook and add in options as an adventure calls for it ("Man, I'd really like an intelligent human-looking construct...oh, here's the soulbound mannequin in Bestiary 4) or add new player options if the players ask for them ("Hey, can I play an inquisitor?" *thirty seconds of glancing over the PRD* "Sure.").

A given campaign needs options for about 4-6 PCs. It always seems to me like it's easier to allow/disallow something as a player asks for it rather than combing through many options and guessing at what should be added or removed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avaricious wrote:
Hell why not make Pathfinder 2.0 Paizo's revision of WotC's 4E?

I like to have nightmares, but this one goes too far even for me.

Avaricious wrote:
Leave D20 entirely and transcend to the Godhood that is D10/Percentile where suddenly every roll makes sense because it functions on the BASE TEN number system we all employ most in real life.

Uhm, what?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Ie the 40k rpg


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking about this a bit lately.

I've been looking at the sales figures that are available. Reading the blogs and the posts. Putting my thoughts in order. Here are some in no particular order.

1. I agree that some sort of condensed PFS player's guide would be nice. Something that would be easy to lug to the place where the game's happening and have it all on hand.

2. People talk about bloat a lot. To my mind, bloat's only bloat if a) the new stuff coming out isn't optional and b) most of it isn't online and free to browse in a searchable engine.

3. I do see D&D in a lot more locations than I see PF. Is it because it is new? Or because Hasbro has the sort of distribution reach that a small company like Paizo (and it IS small) can't hope to match? Or is there another component here at work? Paizo is digitally friendly. WotC is not. I can buy PDFs of Paizo products. I can't of most 5e stuff, I believe. WotC's online store is, frankly, horribly organized. The core rules aren't even at the top of the results. Meanwhile, Paizo offers subscriptions. I'm not sure. This next year will be very telling, I think.

4. Paizo puts out books monthly. They have one or two big projects a year. There is a card game line. A miniatures line. A book line. There's a serious need for art for all of this and full color art isn't cheap. They've licensed audio productions to Big Finish, who is obviously selling enough to justify doing a second series. They've licensed comic books to Dynamite, who is obviously selling enough to justify doing multiple series. It could be, of course, that Paizo is losing money hand over fist and financing all they do using loans and pyramid schemes. But this all suggests to me that they are doing okay financially.

5. This is the big one to me. Paizo realizes it is a hobby company. Not a publisher. Not a game company. Paizo is a hobby company. Hobby companies service a small circle of people, relatively speaking. Hobby companies that don't directly engage their customers tend not to survive. The forums here are active, with several Paizo employees participating on an intense level. There are regular sales on products, including used ones. There's active support of other companies producing what some might consider competing products. I don't know about anyone else, but I really like that. My impression of WotC these days is Hasbro only wants the brand to survive and could care less about the game itself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what will be fun. To see the reactions of all the people calling for a 2nd edition, when it comes in say 10-15 years, when Pathfinder 2.0 does not solve any of the "problems" they had with Pathfinder.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JGray wrote:
3. I do see D&D in a lot more locations than I see PF. Is it because it is new? Or because Hasbro has the sort of distribution reach that a small company like Paizo (and it IS small) can't hope to match? Or is there another component here at work? Paizo is digitally friendly. WotC is not. I can buy PDFs of Paizo products. I can't of most 5e stuff, I believe. WotC's online store is, frankly, horribly organized. The core rules aren't even at the top of the results. Meanwhile, Paizo offers subscriptions. I'm not sure. This next year will be very telling, I think.

By all reports, D&D is selling like mad, so it's hardly any wonder that it would be more available than Pathfinder, since it's regained its status as the top seller in the industry. However, I'm not sure that D&D's success has any major negative effect on Pathfinder, be it in terms of sales or audience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
You know what will be fun. To see the reactions of all the people calling for a 2nd edition, when it comes in say 10-15 years, when Pathfinder 2.0 does not solve any of the "problems" they had with Pathfinder.

Pathfinder 2.0 would most likely be just as "gamey" as the current Pathfinder, with rules consolidated so you don't have to look through splat books to get a martial who can do cool things. Making Pathfinder less numbers-oriented just makes it 5e, which is fine for people who like 5e but terrible for people who like Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Astral Wanderer wrote:
Avaricious wrote:
Hell why not make Pathfinder 2.0 Paizo's revision of WotC's 4E?

I like to have nightmares, but this one goes too far even for me.

Avaricious wrote:
Leave D20 entirely and transcend to the Godhood that is D10/Percentile where suddenly every roll makes sense because it functions on the BASE TEN number system we all employ most in real life.
Uhm, what?

I'm pretty sure that was the point.

Hence:

Avaricious wrote:
...I'll show myself out.

:)

(If not, it fooled me into thinking it was a very funny joke.)

EDIT:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
You know what will be fun. To see the reactions of all the people calling for a 2nd edition, when it comes in say 10-15 years, when Pathfinder 2.0 does not solve any of the "problems" they had with Pathfinder.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Pathfinder 2.0 would most likely be just as "gamey" as the current Pathfinder, with rules consolidated so you don't have to look through splat books to get a martial who can do cool things. Making Pathfinder less numbers-oriented just makes it 5e, which is fine for people who like 5e but terrible for people who like Pathfinder.

I'm reasonably sure CMP is pretty correct, and I agree with A's general statement in principle, but I also believe there is a vast space for consolidation, refinement, and clarification.

For example, the polymorph line of spells has heavily diversified and altered from the original spells - to the point that many of the original spells are substantially overpowered by comparison, even invalidating newer ones (this also happened in 3.5).

This indicates either a design-focus change, or space limitation (or, perhaps, both).

What's more, the multitude of variant rules in different books are a quagmire to wade through - and some of those variant rules seem to rapidly becoming into something of an ascended status as the "new normal" - something that any new rule should aspire to.

With the FAQratta (which is sometimes clearly spelled out, and sometimes isn't, and sometimes is intentional, and sometimes isn't) and similar elements piling up, it seems like there is coming a point at which reorganization and refinement in presentation is a solid option.

Obviously, I don't think this is the time for that. At ten years in? Maybe. That's two (or three, or even four, depending on your accounting...) years down the line.

But making a very different Core with different classes - Paizo classes, including archetypes, and some of the Paizo-specific classes - as the basics, presenting Favored Class Bonuses (specific, and general) as part of the core concepts on level-up, traits, and so on, would mean that there's a lot of things that could be altered in the basics.

There's the possibility of rewording the way they talk about things to either: refine the casual "colloquial" style of English generally espoused; or refine the "solid inflexible matrix" style of English that is occasionally being employed for specific rules systems.

There are lots of ways of shortening or clarifying stat-blocks for class entries that could be used, which would also clean up a few other things. As an example (though this might not be a good idea, it's one idea): having a single progression chart for BAB/Saves, which is referenced by the different classes (this a thing I've been espousing for the longest time, and I know others have mentioned it, meaning it can't be traced to a single "source" so much as "it's an idea that's out there" kind of thing, free to be used); this'd save about half of a typical class's allotted "block" space, meaning there's one more column per class to fit information into (if needed).

Basically, either rewording things to be less matrix-y or more matrix-y, and some consolidation techniques could save tremendous loads of space, where needed.

Probably (as much as I, personally, bitterly regret it) shedding the PrCs from the Core and making them an Optional rule.

Similarly, I do agree it's a heavy numbers game, but I also think those numbers can be streamlined: clarity and simplification need not invalidate what's gone before.

All that said... it's not going to be soon. A few years at the least. Possibly (probably?) more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I have converted Shackled Star to the 5th ed rules and Rage of Demons to Pathfinder. People have been converting adventures since there were multiple game systems. There was once a conventional wisdom that a publisher couldn't make money selling adventures and Paizo blew that idea out of the water. Even if I stopped playing Pathfinder tomorrow and switched to 5th ed (which I wouldn't do because my group loves Pathfinder) I would carry on buying Pathfinder APs, flip mats, Golarion guides, battles miniatures etc - because they are great quality and good to read. Paizo is in a good place.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder to keep it civil in this thread, please, and refrain from any edition-bashing (no matter the system).

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Rocket Surgeon wrote:
The reason that this is impropable is that they have a small, but very vocal, fanbase that demands that things should remain the same.

Where is the evidence that the gamers who are opposed to a new edition of Pathfinder are a "small, but vocal minority"? In the absence of clear evidence, that term is laden with personal bias.

I still contend, every time this topic comes up, that if/when there's a PF2e, it won't be for several more years and it will be backward compatible with the current version (the same way PF is compatible with 3.5e). Paizo is not going to instantly invalidate their entire back-catalog of unsold PF material.

-Skeld


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.

No. A moratorium on posts asking/suggesting/demanding a new edition? That we could use.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
No. A moratorium on posts asking/suggesting/demanding a new edition? That we could use.

That would be the death of the General Discussion board. Without the constant possibility of another "Pathfinder 2.0 needed" or "Martials vs. Casters" or similar debate erupting in a new thread, you wouldn't have nearly as many people waiting with this webpage open, making the occasional post here and there, just waiting and ready to pounce on a new topic for maximum drama. Shame on you, sir, trying to kill our favorite source of argumentative frustration and entertaining rants!


Cerberus Seven wrote:
knightnday wrote:
pennywit wrote:
I know this comes up every so often, so pardon me for re-asking ... but does Pathfinder need a second edition? We've got rulebooks and splatbooks galore now, along with Unchained's optional rules variants. These all have some good things, some bad things, and some neutral things. But it strikes me that we're reaching a certain critical rule mass, where the first step for a PF table is to run down a checklist of all the books to decide what is allowed and what isn't.
No. A moratorium on posts asking/suggesting/demanding a new edition? That we could use.
That would be the death of the General Discussion board. Without the constant possibility of another "Pathfinder 2.0 needed" or "Martials vs. Casters" or similar debate erupting in a new thread, you wouldn't have nearly as many people waiting with this webpage open, making the occasional post here and there, just waiting and ready to pounce on a new topic for maximum drama. Shame on you, sir, trying to kill our favorite source of argumentative frustration and entertaining rants!

Fie! Fie, I say! This is libel of the highest order!

... you forgot Paladins, alignment, and <crafting/mythic/bitter-topic-of-the-week> debates!

Good day to you, sir, I say GOOD DAY!


You know... I'm starting to suspect he didn't really mean that last part.


Everyone should probably cool off and take a niiiiice long drink of water.


You should take a nice long drink of water!


... sounds good!
*wanders off to do so*


The only 2.0 PF I'd want, is just normal PF. But like, a compendium book of Player Companions from years before with updated/erratad stuff.

Quote:
2010 – Advanced Player’s Guide – Multiple new classes that become critical and fan favorites. Plus archetypes – which single-handedly eliminated prestige class bloat, expanded versatility of existing classes, and in the eyes of many is where PF “came into its own”.

PRC bloat might be gone, but it was only replaced with Archetype bloat. That said.. I'd rather have Archetype bloat over PRC bloat if we can only have one.

Liberty's Edge

I can't see yet another rehash of a rehash with better production values doing as well a second time around. Flaws need to be addressed at the very least. If 2.0. has the same yet again what's the point really of investing in something I already have. A 100$+ On something that I already have no thanks my gaming group is going to keep playing the previous edition.

I think those that don't want any change fail to see that Paizo is going to need more than the same to get gamers to buy again imo. We gamers are very picky and let's be honest cheap. Either offer something new or just keep the status quo. I'm pretty sure the main question being asked on a development of 2.0 is their going to be something new or is it the same. If it's another version with house rules some gamers will simply not be interested. If a gamer(s) don't like the caster/martial disparity. That flaw is not addressed. They are not going to return to the fold imo.

If their market research shows that at least 5 out of 10 gamers actually use their 3.5. material make it backwards comptiably. If not then it should be a still be a goal of development to a lesser degree. I switiched to PF a year after release. I have yet to see anyone really go out of their way to use 3.5. material. Either it's "too broken, core only, I don't feel like converting material over". Maybe it's just me but I'm not seeing a huge use of 3.5. material.

Not to mention those books suddenly will not become useless if Paizo goes with a new edition. My Old World of Darkness books suddenly did not become useless because I switched over to the New world of Darkness. I can play one or the other or both. Those who likes playing AD&D and only that did suddenly not stop playing because third edition was released.

At the very least they could streamline some of the system. While it's not too hard to teach the system it's not easy either. Sure for gamers it's no problem. Those who never played a rpg not that easy imo.


memorax wrote:
I can't see yet another rehash of a rehash with better production values doing as well a second time around. Flaws need to be addressed at the very least. If 2.0. has the same yet again what's the point really of investing in something I already have. A 100$+ On something that I already have no thanks my gaming group is going to keep playing the previous edition.

Technically it'd be a rehash of PF 1.0, which was a rehash of 3.5, which was itself a a rehash of 3.0. It'd be a rehash of a rehash of a rehash.

This is kind of where I am at the moment. The game has some problems, but a lot of them are nitpicky stuff for me (healing spells being conjuration and not necromancy), can be solved with 3rd party material (The insistence on only using vancian casting), will be grandfathered in forever (the stupid d20), or would be such a massive change as to require ending backwards compatibility (Christmas tree effect of martial characters).

I don't really see myself switching over any time soon. Part of it is money, but part of it is that I really don't want to learn a new system right now, when I have already made this one work well enough for me.


Skeld wrote:
Rocket Surgeon wrote:
The reason that this is impropable is that they have a small, but very vocal, fanbase that demands that things should remain the same.
Where is the evidence that the gamers who are opposed to a new edition of Pathfinder are a "small, but vocal minority"? In the absence of clear evidence, that term is laden with personal bias.

Look back through threads like this from the last 6 months. It's the same 4-5 people who join the thread to write long posts against the need for a new edition. They usually re-use the same old arguments, along the lines of "backwards compatibility and dollers spent."

Usually some 10-15 people then pop in at random intervals to say something along the lines of "Nope, no new edition is needed." And then remain silent for the rest of the thread.

As it is usually the same small group that speaks against a new edition, including the ones popping in to simply say no, it should be possible to define them as a "small, but vocal minority."

I will give you that the group suggesting/demanding a new edition is equally small, but they are less loud and often less aggressive in their argumentation. At least when compared to the harshness of some of the people arguing against them.

Neither is "clear evidence", of course, but clear evidence does not exist, not even in hard sciences, as facts and evidence changes all the time, changing our views on what is indisputable fact. In the case of the number of forum users arguing for something it is even less clear, as new users will come along while old users will leave the forums, changing the general user profile.

I myself is not for, or against, a new edition of Pathfinder, I stopped using the system some three years ago. But I still find Paizo interesting in relation to my education, as they are a company that has come a very long way in a comparatively short time. With this kind of growth, a company will always be affected one way or another, how they are is what makes it interesting :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rocket Surgeon wrote:
Look back through threads like this from the last 6 months. It's the same 4-5 people who join the thread to write long posts against the need for a new edition. They usually re-use the same old arguments, along the lines of "backwards compatibility and dollers spent."

Just because they're old arguments doesn't make them invalid arguments. :-)


A few years ago I said 2017 would probably be when we would see a new edition. Now I think that may be a little soon, but I do think that one would be a good idea. I think there are a lot of areas that could be improved significantly with a new edition, some of it having to do with bloat, some with my prefered play style, and others with with unclear rules. I think there are flaw with a lot of the base game that could be eliminated while maintaining compatibility.

Some of the changes I would like to see:
1. Improvement of skills. Many of the abilities that are exclusive to classes or with feats should be available to anyone with the skill at a penalty. Examples: Move full speed while stealthed (or any movement impared), kip up. Honestly, you could look through rogue talents for a ton of things anyone should be able to do. Doing this could power up skill based classes with minimal rework to the overall structure. I

2. Rework core classes. Lets face it, the new classes are better. Unchained may fix some of the problems, but not every GM is going to allow it. Adjusting the balance on Rogue (boost tallents, make sneak attack more consistent) and Fighter (brawler style feat switching) wont break the backwards compatibility. Most of the other classes just need tweaking.

3. Fix trap feats, incorporate mandatory feats into standard abilities. Lets face it, 3/4 of feats are so worthless no one will take them and just serve to disappoint inexperienced players, and a number of the remaining ones are practically necessary for certain builds. For instance, make power attack a base option for everyone. Consolidate 2 weapon fighting into a single feat that also grants extra attacks.

3. Clean up wording. Do so in a way that enables more awesome. (Vital Strike with Spring Attack anyone?)

4. Eliminate the Christmas Tree Effect. There are plenty of ways it is done on these boards that would be rather simple to adjust for compatibility. Many of them completely eliminate the need for wealth by level.

The problem is many of these changes are to recognized flaws within the system that can't be fixed without invalidating things in core. There are tons of quality of life adjustments that would be rather simple to implement that at this point will be lost to the void of ever expanding rules bloat to all but the most dedicated of players. For this reason, I think a Pathfinder 2.0 will eventually be inevitable.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber
Rocket Surgeon wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Rocket Surgeon wrote:
The reason that this is impropable is that they have a small, but very vocal, fanbase that demands that things should remain the same.
Where is the evidence that the gamers who are opposed to a new edition of Pathfinder are a "small, but vocal minority"? In the absence of clear evidence, that term is laden with personal bias.

Look back through threads like this from the last 6 months. It's the same 4-5 people who join the thread to write long posts against the need for a new edition. They usually re-use the same old arguments, along the lines of "backwards compatibility and dollers spent."

...

I had hoped you had some actual evidence or at least something quantitative, instead of some anecdotal information. "It's time for a second edition" type threads are a storied tradition around here that stretches back far longer than six months. They've been a thing almost as long as PF has been a thing.

Most of the rest of your post strikes me as opinion or confirmation bias. Regardless, I expect Paizo is making decisions based on sales data, not who and how many post to a handful of threads.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:

We've already had Pathfinder 2nd Edition. We've had the 3rd Edition. I don't even know what edition we're on now.

Pathfinder has evolved. Every new book has made incremental changes. Pathfinder today is a different game than it was at release.

The real question is, to use the current lingo, do we need a reboot?

What I'd really like to think about is if there's a way that Paizo could stay viable and keep producing Pathfinder/Golarion material for the current edition without ever-increasing the number of classes and rules that are out there. I'm already overwhelmed; the ACG release followed very closely by the Occult playtest is what made me feel pushed over the edge, and while I've held on to the edge, I still feel pushed over. (OK, I took that metaphor too far.) Soon, there will be people showing up at my tables with the four or so different classes that all go under the name "Vigiliante", and then there will be something else.... It's too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
What I'd really like to think about is if there's a way that Paizo could stay viable and keep producing Pathfinder/Golarion material for the current edition without ever-increasing the number of classes and rules that are out there.

As it is Paizo's business model is AP driven, so they probably could to at least some degree.

The better question on that topic though is whether or not it's a good idea to kill development for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

The real question is, to use the current lingo, do we need a reboot?

What I'd really like to think about is if there's a way that Paizo could stay viable and keep producing Pathfinder/Golarion material for the current edition without ever-increasing the number of classes and rules that are out there. I'm already overwhelmed; the ACG release followed very closely by the Occult playtest is what made me feel pushed over the edge, and while I've held on to the edge, I still feel pushed over. (OK, I took that metaphor too far.) Soon, there will be people showing up at my tables with the four or so different classes that all go under the name "Vigiliante", and then there will be something else.... It's too much.

1. If it's too much for you, then say "I'd prefer if we stayed to x level of content allowed". I sincerely don't understand how so many find this difficult. What stops people from doing this?

2. Vigilante having four different options is not any different from wizard having schools or sorcerers having bloodlines or cavaliers having orders. They are not 4 different classes.
3. Vigilante will not have the four different variations, instead it will be the Avenger/Stalker options in the class by default, with Warlock and Zealot as archetypes.
4. I personally hope they do not stop increasing the number of classes, since there are still concepts that have not been tapped.
5. I personally hope they do not stop increasing the number of rules, since I do not like Golarion I would not have any Pathfinder products to purchase.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
rknop wrote:
The real question is, to use the current lingo, do we need a reboot?

Nope. That's just starting the cycle over again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My two cents, with no evidence whatsoever:

1) I think it would be a bad idea to put out a new edition so close to the release of D&D5e. Let that game sit around for a few more years first, or it might risk more people jumping ship.

2) There seems to be a good stock of existing Pathfinder books around. It might not be a great idea to change the system enough that all those books are suddenly old news and unusable. I think it would frustrate some people (including myself) to think that my PF books were no longer supported; I also think it would mean Paizo has a tonne of useless stock on their hands.

3) It is inevitable that a new edition will emerge at some point. No RPG system (that I'm aware of) has thrived and lasted for more than 10-15 years(..?) (I may be wrong)

Given the above, I suspect a new edition will clean a few things up, and make some optional rules the standard, but not change so much that the older books and APs are useless. Paizo is not short of awesome ideas, and I think there are still more directions to go in terms of classes that could last 2-5 years (if one class-based book with one class / theme came out every year).

If my suspicions are correct, I wouldn't be disappointed in a new version. The CRB2.0 would be more like a sweeping Unchained book that made the core classes fresh again, and kept a my existing books relevant.


What I'd like to see would be reorganization and compaction of existing rules -- for instance, reorganize classes and archetypes into a-la-carte class features (Talents, Feats, etc.) that can be used by way of character build choices to recreate the existing archetypes with much fewer archetypes. Also go through and clean out trap options, overpowered options, and obsolete options (for instance: merge Enlarge Spell and Reach Spell into one feat). Don't break backwards compatibility except when fixing things that are already broken -- in general, don't create more disruption than occurred when going from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder 1.0, and the new edition should do fine.

Oh, and by the way, we already have both archetype bloat and prestige class bloat (just take a cruise around www.d20pfsrd.com), although most of each seem to be just ignored (at least in the PbPs on these messageboards).


Skeld wrote:
Regardless, I expect Paizo is making decisions based on sales data, not who and how many post to a handful of threads.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I was simply stating the tendencies I have observed over the years of following these boards and seeing the development of the Pathfinder game.

I do agree that they are probably making many of their decisions based on sales data. The problem with that approach is that sales data is only a single parameter to look at and by looking at only a single parameter, they will be missing a lot of vital information to stay alive as a business.

What I also believe is that they take a big hint from the forums, as it is a free source of opinion. What should always be remembered though, is that the people on forums are very rarely representative for the collected customer base, as they are only those who are interested enough to spend their free time reading and writing posts on the matter. Most customers are satisfied with playing the game and when the game becomes a chore they simply switch games.

Sales numbers will never tell you why you are losing customers, only that you are. And forum posters can never give you a good picture of what people think about your product, because they are always highly biased, as the ones posting are the ones who feel strongly about something, no matter their approach.


Arachnofiend wrote:

If what the "greater fanbase" wants is a watered down system where every character of a given class is functionally identical then I'm glad to not be part of that mob.

I'm quite happy with Pathfinder. What you consider bloat I consider depth. You already have 5e for what you want, changing Pathfinder to be more like 5e just makes it so that I don't have what I want anymore.

Perhaps you could explain why you consider Pathfinder has more depth, or why the extra options that keep coming out constitute more depth rather than increasing bloat. A shallow but broad system isn't the same as a narrow but deep one.


I'm one of those not wanting a second edition PF any time soon.

Right now I'm introducing my GF to the game, and yeah, there's much to take in. Still, I like the diversity of possible character-options, even if not all options are equally 'good'.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
1. If it's too much for you, then say "I'd prefer if we stayed to x level of content allowed".

Playing PFS, where I don't get to limit the allowed sources. Wanting to continue playing PFS, because I've quite enjoyed it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Coffee Demon wrote:
3) It is inevitable that a new edition will emerge at some point. No RPG system (that I'm aware of) has thrived and lasted for more than 10-15 years(..?) (I may be wrong)

People will probably write both of these off, since they are "second-tier" (in terms of sales and how widely they're played, that is, not in terms of how good of a game they are). However, Call of Cthluhu, despite having gone through several different "versions", stayed pretty much the same game for decades. Paizo's Advanced Players Guide changed Pathfinder more than new versions of CoC changed that game.

Also, GURPS has had long version cycles. GURPS third edition lasted 18 years. GURPS 4th edition is now 11 years in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Coffee Demon wrote:
3) It is inevitable that a new edition will emerge at some point. No RPG system (that I'm aware of) has thrived and lasted for more than 10-15 years(..?) (I may be wrong)

People will probably write both of these off, since they are "second-tier" (in terms of sales and how widely they're played, that is, not in terms of how good of a game they are). However, Call of Cthluhu, despite having gone through several different "versions", stayed pretty much the same game for decades. Paizo's Advanced Players Guide changed Pathfinder more than new versions of CoC changed that game.

Also, GURPS has had long version cycles. GURPS third edition lasted 18 years. GURPS 4th edition is now 11 years in.

Very few systems have shown mechanical changes between editions as marked as those shown with D&D 3e/4e/5e. If Pathfinder 2e, when and if it ever appears, had mechanical changes that were as big as those between, say, Pendragon 1e and Pendragon 5e I doubt if most people would find reason to complain.

Mind you, Pendragon 1e is a good starting point when you're looking to design a new edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just going to repost this from another thread on THIS SAME TOPIC:

"I have no doubt there will be a "2E" but 2E can mean a wide variety of things, from a heavily errated Pathfinder, A Pathfinder where the rules largely stay the same but the layout is radically redesigned, A Pathfinder which is a gradual evolution of the system allowing backwards compatibility, to a complete tossing of the D20 mechanic.

Personally...I think we have some time left before we really need to worry about it, and books like Unchained show that Paizo can address legacy issues that they were stuck with in a manner that doesn't throw out the existing ruleset. I hope that the existing books continue to be relevant in any rules update, and if books need to be updated it's done in a novel manner that isn't just regurgitating the ultimate and advanced books."

I would still say most of this is true. I also think there is no reason to believe that the WotC/TSR paradigm is the only paradigm, and indeed the differences between those companies and Paizo (and the current RPG situation) are significant enough that what worked in the past may not work in the future.

I will say, I really doubt Pathfinder is going to go for a overall more simplistic rule set. That DnD niche seems to be successfully filled by 5E. I also would not expect any "new edition" until Pathfinder core rule book sales decline and that decline starts affecting the other lines.


So, Paizo most likely won't release a 2nd edition anytime soon, but consider that Pathfinder is mostly just an advanced form of 3.5 dnd, with Pathfinder often considered version 3.75. So maybe the next version will instead come from yet another company picking up on Paizo's idea and success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Coffee Demon wrote:


3) It is inevitable that a new edition will emerge at some point. No RPG system (that I'm aware of) has thrived and lasted for more than 10-15 years(..?) (I may be wrong)

That depends on what you consider a new edition...and how it is done.

OD&D/AD&D were basically the same game. OD&D came out first, but as things were added, a compilation of sorts was needed. AD&D to me was more a compilation of all the stuff that was out there for OD&D and in essence was the same system, and basically completely compatible in comparison.

AD&D 2e had almost the same things as AD&D 1e (despite what some detractors would think) but cleaned up and simplified things to a degree. They were the same game. In fact, there were more similarities between 1e and 2e than 3e and 3.5 from my perspective. In that light...today...I'd say they'd just be called a cleanup rather than a new edition...

They even had a grandfather clause in 2e saying if you wanted, anything from 1e transferred over.

3e was sort of a collection of the Options books of 2e, but changed completely with a makeover to create a totally and completely different system. Compatibility, in regards to what OD&D to AD&D or 1e to 2e were...was a complete joke in relation. Sure, you could convert things, but it wasn't basically seamless integration almost like previously.

In that light, if you consider OD&D and AD&D basically all the same system (and I feel they were...3e was the first time you see a serious change in the mechanics and dynamics of it, which started the entire...this next edition HAS to be different) than that edition lasted 25 YEARS.

Now, for a PF2e, you'd have to ask yourself, would you want something more akin to the OD&D to 1e thing (I'd say not, that would accumulate all the Ultimate and Advanced books...which would make for a really massive tome...and the CRB is already pretty big), and 1e to 2e transition? If they did it like that...people might not even NOTICE the changes in many aspects. In fact, it could even just be a revision of PF 1e...without any major shakeups.

HOWEVER...those who are calling for an edition change up of PF don't strike me as wanting something as simple as the OD&D to 2e type changes...(which as I said, today probably would only be more like a revision than an entirely new edition...meaning that version of D&D lasted 25 YEARS...probably 18 of them before having a REAL dent in business)....

They want something more drastic aka...the edition changes from 2e to 3e, or 3e to 4e, or 4e to 5e.

In that light, I'm not certain such drastic changes aer necessary. 2e to 3e seemed to go over well, but 3e to 4e seemed to hit some glitches...and though 5e seems to be faring relatively decently...I'd say their sales are nowhere close to the 3e era...and possibly only doing as well as the early 4e days.

Edit: Of course, in that light, one could say PF is basically just 3e revised...like 2e was 1e revised. In which case, the D20 system that PF is using is actually done with 15 years and almost 16 years along already.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, I thought Pathfinder Unchained was a toe in the pool of a 2nd edition anyway. It was looking at way to rebalance previously written content to fit better with content that has been released since.

From my viewpoint, I can see that pathfinder release quite a large amount of books, and sometimes the best way to make new books attractive is to make the content just a little more powerful than previous releases. a lot of posters on these boards have extolled the virtues of classes from Unchained and ACG for their power. This can mean that classes from the original books can seem a little weak/plain/unrefined in comparison. I would like to see an extension of the Unchained book to cover the rest of the core classes, but that's just me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

As a different post...on the topic. I really like PF as it is right now. I enjoy it. I DO see some migration by others (a few players at my table even) to always fixate on the new and shiny releases.

It's possible Paizo has lost some players to this new and shiny effect (aka...5e for the majority of those...and a few other RPGs for others), but overall I think it is faring as best it can in the current climate.

I also still think that though the hardcovers probably sell the best at retail...it's the APs and subscriptions that are still their mainline of solid, dependable income.

I'm not sure I'd stick with my subscriptions if I knew a new system that was not compatible with them was coming out. I have a long backlog to play...

HOWEVER...I MIGHT jump on board as well...who knows.

For example...I really like the WH40K RPG that FFG puts out. I have Dark Heresy. They recently revised it and put out a new version of it. I bought it anyways, and when I do play Dark Heresy these days, I AM using the new version. I suppose that may speak more about my tendencies than I like.

However, my instinct towards changes (and I suppose many have this initial feeling towards change) seems to be to not want to have such things occur. I find that half the time I jump onboard with the changes anyways...but there are those other 50% of the times when I don't (for example...I never changed up and went to FFG's 3e of WHFRP...I was happy with 2e and went with my dislike of the changes they did with 3e).

Liberty's Edge

Paizo is stuck between a rock and a hard place IMO. Too much change and you alienate fans. Another rehash with houserules and less sales. I have reached a point where I refuse to buy a new edition with a minimum of 50%+ new material. If a new edition has nothing new to offer its hard to justify buying it again. It's also hard to see a new edition also be different enough that one had to either learn it again. Or that one cannot use their older material with the new edition.

I don't envy Paizo and what they may have to do in the future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The area of Pathfinder I'm most familiar with is the magic system they have employed. The current state of the vancian magic system is akin to my old neighbor's basement from when I was a kid. All the kids would come over to play, but no one would ever clean up. Every five feet was like moving through a square of plastic caltrops, and no one could find what they wanted.

There are just too many spells. Some do the exact same thing as a lower level spell of similar name with a magnified effect, others do something very similar to a different spell, and some spells are misleadingly named (i.e. "Circle of Protection" spells do not work the same way as "Protection From" spells do).

Then we have the ever shifting scale of spells going from useful to useless and vice versa as players advance in level. Sleep is great at low levels, but then you might as well erase it to make room for a useful spell past character level 6. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have things like burning hands whose damage is so low at 1st level there is no reason for anyone to cast it.

When tallying up all the changes needed to make the magic system work consistently across all levels, especially in conjunction with the classes using it and the magic item creation rules, an almost complete revision is necessary. For instance, allowing upcasting of spells to higher level versions of themselves is a fine idea, but when you make the entire system work that way lower level spell slots eventually become useless. You'd need a magic point system for it to truly work.

51 to 100 of 606 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is it time for Pathfinder 2nd edition? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.